Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds the critical constraint that deletion is only allowed for DRAFT campaigns and that sent campaigns are preserved for audit history, providing additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences. The first states the action, and the second adds the essential constraint. There is no unnecessary information, and the key points are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple delete operation with one parameter, the description covers the primary action, the key status constraint, and the behavior for sent campaigns. An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. The tool is well-documented for its complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for campaignId. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool deletes a campaign, specifies the required DRAFT status, and explains that sent campaigns are retained for audit. This distinguishes it from other delete tools and from campaign management siblings like update_campaign or restore_campaign.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states the tool is only for campaigns in DRAFT status and that sent campaigns are kept for audit, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention any alternative tools like restore_campaign for reverting deletion, which would further improve guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.